Dec 21, 2006 ... Aluminium Industrie Vaassen BV v Romalpa Aluminium Ltd [1976]1. Romalpa, is an important case, so important in fact that retention of title .... Lectures of Dr. Jonathan Fitchen Lecturer in law, University of Wales, Abersytwyth.

The plaintiff company, Borden (U.K.) Ltd., are the manufacturers of a product called .... in his argument for the plaintiffs, is the decision of this court in Aluminium Industrie Vaassen B.V. v. Romalpa Aluminium Ltd. [1976] 1 W.L.R. 676. ..... Logo for the University of Maastricht Logo for the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven ...

199 The clause is also referred to as a “reservation of title clause” or a “Romalpa
clause” after the case that explicitly established this method of security: Aluminium Industrie Vaassen BV v Romalpa Aluminium Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 676.

Explain the difference between Legal property rights, Equitable property
rights and Personal Rights.
In distinguishing legal property right, equitable property
right and personal right, the nature of the rights will be discussed.

A retention of title or reservation of title (“ROT”) clause is defined as, “a clause in a contract for the sale of goods providing that ownership in the goods is retained by the seller until payment is made for the goods.”[1] These clauses gained much attention and became widely used following the case Aluminium Industrie…

The purpose of a retention of title clause is to ensure that even if goods (or equipment) are delivered into the custody or control of the buyer, title shall not pass to the buyer until some condition(s) - usually payment - are fulfilled. This is useful for recovery of unpaid goods or proceeds of sale thereof, in the event of the buyer’s insolvency.

The subject of this dissertation is the retention of title clause (ROT) in Belgium, the United Kingdom and the European perspective. Retention of title is on the crossroads of several law themes. It involves contractual issues...

Occasionally a law case becomes so well know that its name lives on to label the issue first raised in the case. My favourite was the Anton Piller Order, which used to be a fairly common court order sought to provide the applicant with the right to search premises and seize evidence without prior warning. …